I originally posted this on my other blog, but I decided to take it off because the majority of people there do not want to read politically slanted material. Since this particular site is where I share my views, I see no problem here. This is rather verbose for the majority of people, but hopefully it will enlighten someone.
One caveat, the first paragraph was intended or my other audience and this particular version of my blog is unaltered. I changed the other one to make it more readily readable.
I have repeatedly repressed my urges to write about anything remotely political, but have on occasion put some politically slanted subjects briefly on this site and then later remove them. I avoid the subject essentially because the majority of the people who read my blogs do not want to read about such nonsense. In spite of all my hesitancy, and the knowledge that the majority of people are not even remotely interested in this subject, I feel the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 is beyond politics and is much too exigent of an issue not to be written about. It also helps that the adoption of this Act just pisses me off.
When President George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, he in effect abolished the writ of habeas corpus, not to mention that this law essentially renders our international treaty obligations under the Geneva conventions null and void. Our government has in effect reinterpreted the Geneva Convention and shown our disdain at doing the morally right thing. Therefore, October 17, 2006, the day this Act was signed, will probably be remembered as one of the blackest days in American history and it sadly passed with great fanfare from the extreme right. But what is even more tragic is that more than 90% of the rest of us barely raised a whimper or simply just chose to remain ignorantly bliss to this potentially monumental day. "This is how liberty died; with thunderous applause."
What is habeas corpus and why are these few Latin words, which the majority of us do not even remotely understand the meaning of, so important? Hell, to me, habeas corpus sounds like some poor Hispanic dude died. In reality the words habeas corpus mean to produce the body. The writ of habeas corpus is moreover a vital tool in preserving an individual's right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, as it is afforded to us by the Fifth Amendment of the United States of America's Constitution. Yes, that pesky little thing which gives us all of the freedoms we still "somewhat" enjoy, and the same document which it seems at times the current administration has consistently tried their best to diminish.
The MCA does not merrily suspend the writ of habeas corpus; no, it wipes it out, much like one smashes an annoying fly. Habeas corpus has served as "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." With one fluid stroke of the pen, President Bush has squashed habeas corpus as if it was some ephemeral nuisance to his ability to successfully prosecute the War on Terror. The writ of habeas corpus was not some temporizing measure our founding fathers just arbitrarily threw into the mix we know as jurisprudence -- it was much more. Habeas corpus has also served and continues to serve as the bedrock of the English legal system since circa 1215. This is the same system which our fledgling country chose to use as its model in 1789. That is how vital habeas corpus was until last Tuesday.
Am I being too overly dramatic? I really do not think so. If the Supreme Court does not overturn this law, anyone the US president, or his appointed commission, deems to have provided material support to anti-US hostilities can be indefinitely detained without the ability to challenge this detention. Just for clarification, this law encompasses all US citizens, even those who have never left the United States. Perhaps I'd better be careful here or I might be one of the individuals sitting in a Gitmo prison cell wearing orange. And since I would not have the ability to contest my imprisonment, I am sure I would be there until hell freezes over. If you think this cannot happen, guess again. On three previous occasions the then president of the United States used similar acts or orders to justify the imprisonment of fellow US citizens. Franklin D. Roosevelt's interment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, under Executive Order 9066, was the last president to violate the writ of habeas corpus. I truly wonder which future president will have to apologize much like when President Reagan was forced to say sorry to the living internees in 1988.
It is sad how President Bush, with the assistance of a capricious Congress, has succeeded where the terrorists have failed. He has managed to eradicate one of our most cherished privileges without the majority of the country even realizing that he has done so. Those of us who are aware of this travesty and have done nothing, are allowing the fear of fear itself to govern their decision-making process. It is difficult for me to comprehend how our country has come so far in such a short amount of time.
Don't get me wrong; I am not endorsing amnesty for the terrorists or even suggesting they should be tried in a civilian court system. I am contending there are other ways this can be handled legally, without violating the rights of human beings, even if some of them are despicable excuses for one. All one has to do is look at some of the amendments proposed by the members of the Senate in order to get an idea of how we can preserve our integrity while concomitantly aggressively fighting terrorism. Speaking of senators, I am absolutely appalled Senator John McCain, who I admired and respected, knuckled under to pressure and not only allowed, but endorsed this monstrosity. On MSNBC's Hardball, while feebly trying to answer a question, proffered by an Iowa State University student, about why he relented on his steadfast opposition to this Act, Senator McCain contended he was given guarantees the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 would remain intact and therefore the rights of these individuals would be protected. He, however, failed to mention this act has been decried as the first step in eliminating detainees right to issue a writ of habeas corpus (address the courts as to the validity of their detention). If my memory serves me, and I believe it does, the US Supreme Court found much of The Detainee Treatment Act unconstitutional. This is why it became necessary for the President to have Military Commission Act legislated in the first place. I additionally believe the case in which the Supreme Court made this ruling has caused a very well-meaning naval lawyer his career. Unbelievable!
Well, if the abolishment of habeas corpus was not enough, this law was touted by the administration as necessary to clarify the complexities of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, but it has done nothing except put a bigger haze on what is legal and illegal. Under the 1996 War Crimes Act, "violations" of the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 were considered felonies. Now only "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 are considered crimes. To exacerbate the situation, the Military Commission Act is retroactive to 1997, thereby protecting anyone that is found to have committed violations of the War Crimes Act from prosecution. In other words, if the reports of water boarding (which most define as torture) are correct, those who committed or ordered those acts are now immunized under this disastrous legislation.
I am not going to get into this anymore. There is just simply too much more for a simple guy like myself to adequately cover everything. I will, however, give some of my qualifications for writing this particular entry. As a former military police investigator, I know the proper and legal way to interrogate suspects -- even enemy combatants. If the reports of alleged torture are true, this is definitely not the best way to get actionable intelligence. There are numerous techniques which do not violate some of the most essential elements of the Geneva Convention. We do not have to create "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;" nor do we have to resort to torture. In fact, numerous studies have demonstrated the unreliability of information obtained through torture.
For those of you under the impression that water boarding is not torture, you obviously have not had the awful experience of feeling like you are drowning. As a person who has suffered with extraordinary bouts of pneumonia, I know what it is like to have fluid in my lungs. Believe me when I tell you not being able to breathe and knowing you are closer to death and life is not just uncomfortable, it is torture. Torture with a capital T!
Please, for the sake of our brave soldiers overseas and for those of us who might be victimized by this law, do not let this gross miscarriage of justice continue without voicing your opposition to it. If we, the greatest nation on earth, cannot follow the principles of our own Constitution and the Geneva Convention, how can we expect others to?
Click here for
more